UKC

All sides have done unspeakable things in this brutal Civil War and Assad is smack bang in the centre of it all.

However is Assad the right man for Syria, and if he was to leave power by fair means or foul, what or who would fill the void?

Is it a case of better the devil you know now?

In reply to The Lemming:

Well mine haven't. Assad was always against installing Sharia law, and pretty tolerant of Christians and other faiths, the Muslim tribes that seem against him are much more extremist and while he was undoubtably a viscious dictator I fear we will get a worse situation in Syria if he is deposed.

In reply to Al Evans:

Agreed. Both sides appear to be fairly aweful. We should not be/get involved in anything other than helping those who leave the country. And as for Iran not being included in peaces talks, ridiculous.

In reply to Al Evans:

While I'd agree that things could get worse if he went (as with Iraq after Saddam was removed), that is still no justification for him staying. A good friend of mine is from Aleppo (luckily managed to get his family out 6 months ago) and has some pretty appalling tales of life under his dictatorship and his actions during the civil war.

In reply to crayefish:

Agree.. I think we should learn a lesson from allowing (even supporting) Saddam for so long.

In reply to Al Evans:


That'll be why he introduced a new Constitution under which only Muslims can become President. Very tolerant.

Assad is a brutal murdering dictator. Quite why anyone thinks he's a suitable choice for President of any country is beyond me.

In reply to The Lemming:

Assad is a shit of the highest order, his regime is properly disgusting, the humanitarian catastrophe unleashed by the civil war is genuinely biblical in nature.

however, the war is killing lots of Islamist fighters from around Europe and Europes periphery. if Assad loses, its not going to be the 'moderates' in suits in Geneva who will control Syria, it'll be the AQ affiliated groups who will have wedges of Saudi/Quatari money and a safe, secure training and logistics hub on the south-east border of Europe.

continuing war is not good for Europe because it means continuing instability - Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and even Turkey are being destabilised by the continuation of the war - but conversely the ending of the war will give lots of trained, motivated Islamist fighters something else to do with their lives: and i'm not sure that climbing, or basket weaving, or democratic politics are going to be their destinations.

two years ago the situation was different - you had a liberal, secular opposition that looked to Europe and the US, they no longer exist...

In reply to tony:



Exactly. A brutal murdering dictator does has no place in leading a country, I don't think we need to refer to history to tell us that.

In reply to tony:

Apparently quite a lot of Syrians do, but what do they know, eh? If Cameron & Co say he has to go that's it, isn't it?

Watching the whole of the N and central part of Africa in melt down due to the flood of weapons "we" supplied to get rid of Gaddafi is also further proof of how we should all be grateful that the Western world has such humane and far sighted leaders too. Where would we, and the planet, be without them?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I think implying (well that's how it comes across) that most Syrians like Assad and that the main reason Westerners are against his is because of the views of the UK government is a little blinkered.

Many more Syrians hate Assad, but most don't speak out for fear of reprisals. The man has a lot of blood on his hands and the only people kidding themselves that it is not the case are Assad and Putin.

Every dictator has loyal supporters (usually given some form of concession or privilege) or they wouldn't be able to hold power. But having a group of loyal supporters is quite different from the country as a whole accepting someone as a leader. And no doubt that last comment will provoke some form of similarity to the current UK coalition, but of course we elected them... Assad is a dictator.

In reply to The Lemming:

youtube.com/watch?v=X3ej0UHdNRA&

A good watch.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Do you still think the Americans are so desperate to invade as you were arguing they were for the last three years? And what about their impending war on Iran that you kept saying was just about to happen?

In reply to David Barratt:


Actually there seem to be 3 sides now. Assad, Al Qaeda, and the other opposition. But all pretty awful as you say.

In reply to The Lemming:

Got to admit I agree, Assad is far from perfect but if he goes it'll be taken over by Islamic extremists it'll be a major step back for the country.

The original rebels fighting for freedom and democracy which everyone was so keen to support internationally have no hope of securing rule of the country if he goes the only way is to support him on condition he agree's to come reforms. Then we can focus on crushing the insurgences and restoring order.

The problem is now, the west has put its self firmly against Assad, I doubt very much if they can U turn now. Basically they got carried away with the whole Arab spring crap jumped on board to early and now we've doomed their country because its gone to crap and we picked the wrong team

In reply to MikeTS:


A lot more than just three now.

Just reading that in Raqqa the Syrian airforce is defending ISIS positions. How fuqqqd is that?

In reply to TobyA:


You have short memory... forgotten Mrs Clintons efforts to stage a Libya II in Syria already? Also forgotten the "Chemical weapons II" in Syria, they wanted to do an Iraq but that didn't work either, the Russians brought in a bit of common sense. Speaking of common sense, have you noticed what's going on in Africa? Two French military interventions to fight Islamist gangs armed to the teeth with weapons from the Libyan adventure that you loved so much... more collateral damage from Western war mongers on a mission.

As for Iran, again your memory seems short, have you already forgotten all those bomb attacks against Iranian scientists, or the crippling sanctions that the Western world gives itself the right to impose on Iran? Even your memory can't have forgotten that only yesterday Iran was refused "permission" to participate in the meeting about Syria? Ban Ki-moon invited them but then had to do an about turn after he got a bollocking from his "bosses" in Washington... Can't have the biggest country (maybe second biggest?) country in the area present, can we? That would be too much to ask.

You sound disappointed that the Yanks haven't attacked Iran like they did Libya and so many others, but don't worry your (apparent) blood lust will soon be satisfied somewhere soon.

In reply to crayefish:


I'd say the ones who take all media hype about Syria are a little blinkered. This civil war has cost over 100 000 lives and 10s of billions of $ destruction, about half the deaths are government forces, police, army etc. Those who encouraged, financed and armed it have a lot of blood on their hands. Some people seem to finally have twigged that it isn't as simple as they thought and appear to be having second thoughts, but maybe it's a bit late for that for all those dead Syrians and millions of refugees - maybe it would have been better to have encouraged restraint rather than whipping up blood-shed?

It's not as if we haven't an example in Libya of the results of such gung ho gangsterism, it's hardly been a success story for most Libyans, has it? Nor for the African continent as a whole.


That's what they say of anyone they want to get rid of, but we don't have to believe them. For many Syrians he is seen as their only defence against a Sunni take over. They might not love him but that's not the point. On a similar subject did you read a few days ago that in Tunisia there's a movement growing in favour of Ben Ali, the previous "dictator" there. Not a majority but some are so fed up with the way things are going there, the incapacity of the present crew that they are wondering if their old dictator was as bad as all that after all.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Ahh.. good old Brucey.. did you see the eye gougings? How can you back any side here?

In reply to IainRUK:


That's the problem and one with no easy solutions because we don't know who to believe with the news that has been drip fed to us through our own media for the last three years.

If Assad goes, who or what will replace him?

Seems like the worst thing that can happen for Syria is if the opposition/Al-Qaeda/whoever else is being bankrolled topples Assad.

its a bloodbath now, but could you even imagine the resultant bloodbath when the opposition take up arms amongst themselves in pursuit of power?

In reply to crayefish:

You obviously know absolutely nothing about the workings of Western media,who show the world populations only what the regime changing hawks of the West want them to.If in need of clarification see Iraq and Libya as well as their other outright lies and false flag attempts in Syria.


Are you channeling Fox News?If not,then perhaps you should consider a job there,you say Assad and Putin don't think Assad has any blood on his hands.Do you see how silly you make yourself look?Most Syrians hate Assad you tell us but where is your proof?The 1 and a 1/2 million Syrians took to the streets to support him?We don't get coverage of this just like every main Western news agency that was taken to hospitals in Libya to see the thousands of mutilations,dead and injured civilians after our planes started bombing.Didn't write a word.Didn't show a picture.They showed no pictures of the streets of Tripoli full of dead bodies from US bombing of civilian areas.
The USA started this in another line of regime changes and Obama should be impeached/arrested for breaking US law by bombing Libya without going to ask congress first,he is the mass murderer who is covered in blood.Not a people defending their country from foreign terrorists!

In reply to cootmorton:




Joined the site specifically to tell everyone the moon landings are a fake, the media is against us and down with capitalism have ya? LOL

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

But you kept saying for years of course they were going to invade. But they haven't have they? In fact it is clear now the Obama wanted anything but that. The Russians just gave them a handy lifeline to clutch at to help them stay well clear of the whirlpool. Your rabid imperialists tigers seem to be scaredy pussy cats more interested in trying to introduce low cost health insurance at home than 'imperialism' in the middle east. What are the anti-imperialists of "Global Research" making of all this reluctance to do any empire building?

In reply to The Lemming:


Huh? As much fighting has been taking place over the last two months between different groups who are against the Assad regime, as between them and the Assad regime. There have been some reports that the Assad govt. has even paid ISIS and Jahbat al Nusra to keep open pipelines in areas they now control - so the govt. actually supporting al-Qaeda affiliated groups, although now as Nusra has in places turned on ISIS, I wonder how that is working out.

In reply to TobyA:


Heard something very similar from my Syrian friend; that the regime was funding some of the rebel groups to promote infighting and give the rebels a bad name amongst ither reasons thats I have now forgotten.

In reply to crayefish:

Is it at all significant that the majority of the major wars and acts of terrorism going on in the world at the moment involve Muslim beilevers/extremists ? How soon will we have to take stock in the secular world and decide what to do about them?

In reply to crayefish:

I'm sure lots is rumours but their intelligence services would be stupid if they didn't try something like that would they? Plus of course when ISIS was still Zarqawi's lot in Iraq, the Syrian govt. were always said to be complicit in helping them across the border in order to make life difficult for the US.

But then again if ISIS are such freaks that they are too extreme for even Nusra to be able to work with, you can see why the anti-Assad Syrians would very soon hate having them there.

In reply to Al Evans:

Of course the impact of Islamic extremism is important in various conflict dynamics; but in other conflicts religions has no role or it is people who are Muslim who are the victims of extremists of other religious groups.

What about the Christian mobs killing Muslims in CAR, including the cannibalism witnessed by journalists a couple of weeks back? Or the Buddhist monks leading pogroms leading to hundreds of deaths of Rohinga Muslims in Burma (and Ang San Suu Kyi's rather obvious reticence to criticise them?). Or all the violence in places like DRC or Mexico with thousands dying where no one is claiming that any religion has anything to do with it?

In reply to Al Evans:


Is that even true Al? It's a fascinating fact if so and I appreciate it's a popular narrative but it's one that requires some backing up with actual data.

OP: My views on Syria haven't changed much in the last three years, I didn't know enough about the place back then to have an informed opinion, I still don't today. Who know whether a powerful early intervention could have stopped the war before it gathered momentum, whether a moderate broad -based government with broad international backing could have gained and held power, whether they could have effected positive change? Likewise, could backing Assad in the early stages of the rebellion have re-stabilised the region ready for the gradual change promised by his early days in power or would it have simply increased the stresses present risking greater violence in the future? Or has staying reasonable well clear of the maelstrom been the best of a bad lot of options? How clear have we really steered of this? Can the rather artificial post-colonial landscape of Arabia and Africa ever hope to relieve its stresses gradually and peacefully or are they condemned to seemingly endless cycles of dictatorship, corruption, war and revolution? Has Europe actually escaped this cycle?

jk

In reply to TobyA:


But there seems to be the makings of Sunni Shiite civil war brewing in the countries split between them(Iraq, Syria, Lebanon) which dwarves anything else going on in the world

In reply to Al Evans:


Yes, but around 500 years ago that is exactly what the Christians were doing. You could also say that the Muslims of today are the Christians of 500 years ago. They're just playing catch up

In reply to MikeTS:

Must admit, i laughed out loud at the BBCs po-faced reporting of Irans Rouhani call for "free and fair elections" in Syria...........

In reply to crayefish:

You seem to be extremely idiotic,are you?
The points i made in my first post to you are all true.ie.The accounts by Libyans of the horrific results from our bombing and murdering of thousands of Libyan civilians,the 2 million Libyans who went on to the streets to support Gaddafi,the 1 1/2 million Syrians who did the same,the lies surrounding the causes as well as the actual causes of the illegal US war on Libya and the illegal supplying of arms to known terrorist organisations in Syria.The lies about WMD in Iraq which completely fooled very many of the worlds populations with the aid of an unquestioning,indeed fully partisan media in this instance and the others.

My point about Obama,do you hear about this on the news at ten?No.

Perhaps you should just stick to your moronic statements like 'Pootin n Assad are the only ones who fink Assad doesn't have any blud on his hands'
I think you had better be a good boy and stick to your celebrity gossip magazines,run along now.
Ps.Elvis lives in a bungalow a few doors down from me.

In reply to crayefish:
Oh and the fact that all the Western press were sitting around in Tripoli listening to the USA bombing the hell out of the Libyan suburban districts,seeing the bodies scattered all over the streets but reported nothing!
Nothing!
To the incredulity of the Libyans who were asking,pleading with the Western press core to tell the people of the West what their governments were doing.
What did they see?....nothing!

In reply to The Lemming:

Afghanistan Mk2 IMO

In reply to The Lemming:

have my views changed? I had none, and I still dont, so nope

In reply to cootmorton:

Hi Shona,
You do realise the thread is about Syria, not Libya or Iraq?
They are different countries with their own unique compositions, populations and problems.

In reply to off-duty:
You replied to me but you seem to have gotten some funny idea into your head,my name is not Shona,why would it be?I presume you are not familiar with the ways in which a debate can expand onto other subject matter which can be directly linked to the original subject.I for example was making a point about baised,untruthful and downright willful Western media coverage in Syria which linked up to the points i made concerning the tragic events in Libya and Iraq.

Good luck with this new debating thingy Ophelia your going to love it when you learn more about it.

In reply to cootmorton:

I love the way that you aren't Shona-naedanger but you refuse to use the space bar just like she did! Identical "anti-imperialist" views and broken space bar, as Shona! What are the chances of that? Amazing!

In reply to TobyA:

I was in a space bar once but it all got a bit hazy after a few hours...
Shona and now neadanger! And there was this Ophelia pulling me up for not talking about Syria!Ophelia!where are you?this is a perfect example of what you were talking about sweetheart.Lesson 2.
Oh and if i am now an anti-imperialist does that make you an imperialist?

In reply to cootmorton:

I would draw your attention to the quotation marks around the anti-imperialist, often taken as expressing scepticism or ironic usage.

In reply to IainRUK:


I'm not backing any side, I'm criticizing all those who did by sheepishly taking as gospel the propaganda glorifying those who started this whole bloody business. Libya and Syria weren't paradise on earth but neither have gained anything from being destabilised.

The same spin merchants are starting the same thing in Ukraine now and the same sheep are cheering. If they really cared for the wellbeing of the people concerned they would think a bit first.

In reply to TobyA:

Erm,ok i don't care what you are i'm just trying to figure out what on earth you and the babylon are on about with all this Shona rubbish.

In reply to TobyA:


Like all bullies they only attack when they are sure of squashing their enemy. If the UN resolutions hadn't been vetoed by China and Russia they would have done the same as they did in Libya - or have you forgotten what they did in Libya? Are you denying that they did attack Libya?

It's amazing how you can tell such porkies when the recent historical facts are staring you in the face. The west did attack Libya, it's a fact, "scaredy pussy cats" or not.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What is that supposed to mean?In Libya they had free health care,free education.Every single Libyan was entitled to one mortgage free house.They had the highest standard of living in all of Africa,even though it suffered years of destructive US sanctions.Every Libyan citizen was paid a share of the oil wealth every month.This was a country that was COMPLETELY DEBT FREE!how many Western countries must have envied this? The countries of Africa voted for Gaddafi as the President of the African Union,the 100% state owned bank had nearly 144 tons of gold in it's vaults before the US Al-Quaeda terrorists raided it.he stood by Mandela when almost everyone was his enemy.
This was neo-colonialist plunder by the Western countries of a sovereign nation against all international laws.

Syria? Libya Mark 2.

In reply to off-duty:




But with the same enemies... and you can add Iran to the list too

In reply to cootmorton:

I agree about the situation in Libya as you describe it but I don't think we should ignore the problems, the unresolved conflicts between East and West for example or which made the job of destabilising the country so much easier.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Ok so it was a pretty flippin nice place to live in after all for a Libyan, and for many of it's sub-Saharan African neighbours(until the racist US Al-Queada mercenaries started their torture and murder that is)But what is this East West unresolved stuff that you accuse them of?
I mean after the colonial invasions and foreign rule Gaddafi's Socialist Jamahiriya held together for 40 years in peace and prosperity.

Do you want me to tell you how things are now for Libya and Libyans?

Ps.It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with what i say because all the points i have made are facts.

In reply to cootmorton:



Either grow up, get a life or learn to read about the OP.

If you want to drivel on about Libya then start your own Thread about that subject.

And with the greatest respect, either fek off or discuss the issue of Syria.

I hope this clears matters up for a flaimer such as yourself.

In reply to The Lemming:
As a reply to your idiotic OP,i think the people of Syria and no one else should be deciding if he should be their president.Or do you think the people of Somalia's views should be a part of who governs the UK?

Grow up?Fek off?Get a life? What are you on about?Why don't you get an education rather than posing such a childish and lame OP?
Are you really that dumb?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

'the unresolved conflicts between East and West for example '

Yeah you're not wrong, there is a conflict; we have such a sh*t EU that most of Russia want to come and live here, and do so at the first opportunity (been to Courcheval, or London, lately?) and Putin's response is to start Cold War II.

In reply to off-duty:


Well spotted!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

According to you there is an excess of 74 million Russians who have applied to or intend to enter the EU.

Where does this incredible statistic of yours come from?Your extreme over imagination perhaps?

Your indignation that someone should point out that we,the UK,the USA and the EU as well as our Islamic fascist cannibal friends are responsible for destroying peaceful nations?

Now according to you it is Putin who wants to start a new cold war,even though everything points toward the US empire being the ones who,i don't know,invade anywhere they want in the world and attack ALL countries who show any signs of socialism or present/previous alliances with Russia/USSR.They use their press to fool their own public as well as murdering as many millions of foreigners as they want without recourse,because no one is counting and if they do they will be called liars anyway.International law does not apply to us,because we own the law.ie the biggest military in history.

How many US bases are there around the world again is it 190-500?How many circling Russia? What happened when the Russians tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba?What is your opinion on US first strike missile capability around Russia Mr Uncle Sammy Ward?

In reply to cootmorton:


And if they happen to disagree that Assad should be in charge they can just become another photo in the 55,000 recently released.
Or maybe he could just gas them with his "non-existent" chemical weapons.

In reply to off-duty:

Are you saying Assad used chemical weapons?

In reply to cootmorton:


How could he? The poor misunderstood quasi-democratic benevolent leader told the world he never had any...

In reply to off-duty: So I guess if the good old USA had a civil war, or difficult military campaign they wouldn't use there enormous stock pile of illegal WMD....I think not, they've already used Nukes to kill a few hundred thousand civilians in two sizeable cities in Japan.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/12/05/america-s-illegal...

CWC prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It mandates their destruction. Earlier it called on all member states to do so by April 29, 2007. Russia and America requested a delay until April 2012.

Washington now wants it extended through 2020. It's one of the few countries obstructing CWC provisions. It has no intention of destroying illegal weapons. America maintains huge chemical, biological, nuclear stockpiles. New more dangerous weapons replace older ones.

CWC mandates non-complying nations be referred to the Security Council for action against them. America's veto power precludes efforts to deter its lawlessness.

Syria is a tragic situation one that won't be solved by us assisting hard core extremists who in my view are working for the Saudi's
The people who lit this fire are the ones responsible for this atrocity....I suspect that was the Saudi's

In reply to lynx3555:

1) I'm glad you (in comparison to Shona/cootmarten) at least recognise that Syria is undergoing a civil war (though now it is massively complex with outside agencies).

2) There is lots about Chemical Weapons policy that we might have issues with, regardless of the slightly one-sided slant of your article I'm quite sure that more could be done by the US and others to limit CW, but given that the US aren't actually using them to kill their own people then a comparison with Syria is a little bit meaningless.

3) Whataboutery is a slightly pointless argument. Because "the west" once used nukes it now shouldn't get involved in anything anywhere? Or somehow that means it can no longer be critical or concerned about atrocities 75 years on?

In reply to cootmorton:

Hey Shona I missed you XXXXOOOO

In reply to off-duty:
It certainly is a civil war, but considering billions of dollars are being spent by the Qatar and the Saudis, supplying weapons and fighters to over throw Assad, I personally feel it's not quite what it seems.
Even the Syrian free army have been coming under attack from the Saudi sponsored fighters.
As I pointed out, I feel that the real culprits who are responsible for this blood bath are the people who assisted with bringing about this civil war....yes Syria had home grown resentment towards Assad but the involvement by foreign powers ignited the war....and who the Fcuk is Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Both very un democratic countries who use torture and murder to protect them selves from civil war.
Considering that it's very likely that the US are involved through the Saudi connection I feel that the whole affair is drenched in hypocrisy.
Assad had been working towards democracy, hence the reason he had been over in the UK visiting our Queen and prime minister, but I guess rather than a slow gradual transition to democracy it was best to just start a bloody civil war costing thousands of lives just to get it over with....and I'm sure the Saudis would have considered that once the fire was lit, we would run in with our hoses to put it out for them...seems to have done the trick on previous occasions.

In reply to lynx3555:

>

This is a joke, right????? Just checking.

In reply to lynx3555:


Do you actually believe that?

I can understand the rest of your argument although I think you are being very selective if you want to talk about Qatar and Saudi, but not mention Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah corps (and even the odd few Russian 'advisers' and mercenaries) all involved in fighting in Syria. I'm sure everyone in Syria would have been much better off if no outside powers of any kind had got involved in the protests and later outright war; but considering how Assad Sr and later Jr got their country so intimately involved in the violence in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq - it never was likely was it?

In reply to TobyA:
Yeah, Syria occupied much of Lebanon for 30 years so maybe you reap what you sow I suppose.

Interestingly, Israel is now favouring Assad (in opinion, not actions) since the prospect of Islamic fundamentalists on yet another border is pretty horrifying. But the unspoken (unsayable?) preference is for the fighting to go on for a long time without resolution so as to weaken and distract everyone.

In reply to MikeTS:


Interesting article here on the prospect of Islamic civil war

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9122371/armageddon-awaits/

and an interesting quote related to what I said about Israel's position.

'Just take this radio exchange, caught at the ground level earlier this month, between two foreign fighters in Syria, the first from al-Qa’eda’s Islamic State in Iraq and Syria [ISIS], the second from the Free Syrian army [FSA]. ‘You apostate infidels,’ says the first. ‘We’ve declared you to be “apostates”, you heretics. You don’t know Allah or His Prophet, you creature. What kind of Islam do you follow?’ To which the FSA fighter responds, ‘Why did you come here? Go fight Israel, brother.’ Only to be told, ‘Fighting apostates like you people takes precedence over fighting the Jews and the Christians. All imams concur on that.’'

In reply to The Lemming:

And I loved this comment on the article

'This article is pure Orientalism. But that is not surprising considering the Henry Jackson Society is a Zionist "think tank" based in the US that promotes US Imperialism & the Zionist occupation of Palestine. The "Sunni-Shi'a" war is nothing but elitist (& racist) mythology expounded by shills of Zionism'

Shona is not alone! (and she has company that can use a keyboard)

In reply to MikeTS:

That has to be made up, surely?

Or it seems like Islamists are the commies of the C21st, they're more comfortable fighting each other than anyone else

Just like the Left in pre-war Germany - that turned out well, didn't it?

In reply to cootmorton:




No doubt you'll now state that Nazi Germany was a great place to live... loads of living space, an extensive youth program, new motorways, unfavourable ethnics (deemed by the state) removed and a good economy? You're an idiot 'Shona'. Take your conspiracy theories to a one of those American websites where everyone things they have been probed.

In reply to MikeTS:

By Shona you mean me but when you say i am not alone when you refer to some article about Zionism what do you mean? I did not mention Zionists so how do this link to anything that i have said?

Answer: Oh it doesn't at all !but you thought you would throw in some utterly random rubbish anyway and try and attach it to me.After all, you cannot argue ANY of my points so you need to make stuff up.
Good try but not good enough.

In reply to crayefish:

Oh yeah right enough Crayfish you are right i never thought about that one,yes you got me there with the old Libya Nazi Germany similarity,well done good man and all that,now run along there,that a boy.

In reply to cootmorton:

Great, you have no problem with Zionism.
But really I was talking about nuttiness of interpreting the world

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


How did your capitalist European nations do with that we shindig they had in 1914 and then 1939 Robby?

In reply to MikeTS:
Perhaps instead of name calling you could back up what you say or at least tell me what you disagree with and i will put you right,just ask,i won't bite.
What is nutty about what i said? enlighten us!
Ps.i need to go out for an hour or two so if i don't reply straight away,don't worry i haven't forgotten about you sweetie.

In reply to cootmorton:

Go and flame somewhere else!

Either that or plug your rabbit in for some stress relief.

In reply to The Lemming:



Bahaha. But that would involve using a tool of the imperialist western nations I think in commuhippystan they use goats for that...

In reply to TobyA:


Who knows what the truth is, do you?
Assad had been under pressure to start the long road to democracy and the early signs were that this was about to happen......"every long journey starts with a single step" hence why he had been to visit both our Queen, prime minister and various other western leaders.
If you think That Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria etc....are going to follow our model of democracy then you are very likely wrong....parts of Iraq are already falling into unelected hands, the US's reaction to this is "tough, it's now up to the Iraqi government to deal with that issue"
Here's Assad's take on it, it's probably just as believable as all the other opposition bull shit that's out there.
http://www.presidentassad.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...

In reply to MikeTS:


And the Zionists occupied Lebanon for 20 years murdering was it 20,000 people or was it 30,000 people?Oh thats right they don't count do they?
Do you reap what you sow or does that only apply to Arab Muslims?


Yes never in actions so what you say as always is meaningless,Mikey boy!

Here are the words of American congresswoman Cynthia McInney-

'What we witnessed in 2011 was old-fashioned 19th century imperialism-the deliberate plundering of a sovereign nation-state's resources by more powerful conquistadors.'

I suppose she will 'have a nutty view of the world' to MikeTS?
Perhaps it is you who not only have a twisted Zionist world view,
but a neo-colonialist one to or perhaps the two are the same thing.

Since you are so loud mouthed do you want to talk about the Israeli connection to the illegal war and war crimes waged by the unholy alliance against the peaceful people of Libya?

Lets talk about Bernard Henri-Levi !

In reply to off-duty:



what is also meaningless is your nothing posts,the Syrian government did not use chemical weapons,your US/UK supported Islamic cannibal friends did though.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Erm, I was referring to Libya, the conflict between East and West there, but never mind.

In reply to cootmorton:

Having just googled (ex) congresswoman Cynthia I think we can safely say she is a nutty crackpot, yes.

In reply to MikeTS:

>

This is a joke, right????? Just checking.

No it's true but your posts are a joke go and check it's all there.

In reply to off-duty:


But do they? Election results say otherwise as do many people who know the area well. Most of the minorities, Christian, Shias, Druzes etc. support him for fear of the Sunni majority and even amongst this majority many feel safer with the devil they know than with the Sunni extremists that float around the region. The mainstream media are not reliable on this subject.

In reply to MG:

Why would you be saying that then MG?

In reply to MG:
Hello MG!
Are you there?
Why?
I think we can safely say you don't know what your talking about.

In reply to cootmorton:

She's into every conspiracy going it seems

In reply to cootmorton:

May-Ree Doll.... Welcome back!.....Still as nutty as squirrel shit... But never mind.


How's Rab C doing, Btw?

In reply to MG:

No look in detail you will find she doesn't.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


This simply means the facts don't fit your prejudices - you're doing just what all the neo-con supporters in the US did as the "mainstream media" showed what a disaster the war in Iraq was becoming.

Well you should stick in your own little echo chamber of Global Research, RT etc. because its comforting not to actually have your opinions challenged. Probably best just to ignore the following.

Long long before the civil war had started, year after year, human rights groups from around the world were writing about the continuing and sustained human rights abuses carried out by the Syrian regime. Why do you think there are so many Syrian exiles all around Europe? Why do think the Americans rendered the Canadian-Syrian guy who landed at JFK back to Damascus? These are of course the same human rights groups that consistently and honourably led the charge on criticising the Latin American Juntas, the Apartheid regime, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank etc. etc. over the last 30 years. Were they "not reliable" then?

The mass imprisonment of anti-regime protestors and the deaths and torture during that imprisonment was one of the central dynamics that led to the radicalisation of the protests and created a revolution.

In reply to TobyA:

Listening to the description of the well oiled process of execution, faking of post mortem results and documentation and disposal of bodies that has been exposed in the leak of the 55,000 photos, it is hard to believe that this system came into existence fully-formed 2 years ago.

In reply to off-duty:

Oh and you believe this ridiculous Quatari funded rubbish that is uncannily so well timed during these talks.You are such a dupe to be fooled so easily, although we all know you desperately want to believe this faked rubbish.Yes like our Islamist terrorists chemical weapons attack that they tried to blame on the government as well as the massacres,these people are really grasping at straws now.

Remember the Uk and US concocted Iraqi defector called 'curveball',and now we have 'Caesar' you couldn't make it up but they do.'Curveball', was the guy who's lies would lay the foundations for the US illegal invasion and mass murder in Iraq,he later told how the whole thing was all made up.

oh dear Off-duty you will have to do better than this rubbish!

In reply to The Lemming:

Ps. My quote from above-

'What we witnessed in 2011 was old-fashioned 19th century imperialism-the deliberate plundering of a sovereign nation-state's resources by more powerful conquistadors.'

Was not Cynthia Mcinney it was actually made by Bob Fitrakis Professor of Political Science at Columbus State Community College and Executive Director of the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism.And winner of 11 major awards.

In reply to TobyA:
The main cause of this so called 'revolution' was the US supported armed 'protesters', who were there to and did start it all off by murdering Syrian police officers as well as some of the protesters who were marching about the old Emergency law.

In reply to cootmorton:

If I thought your views were based on any sort of experience, other than your selective reading and lack of any ability to make a rational or objective appraisal of ALL the evidence, then I would consider actually discussing the situation with you. (Despite the fact that you always degenerate into single sourced spittle and anti-Western whataboutery)

At least Bruce has travelled and experienced some of these cultures that you appear to be an expert on from afar.

In reply to off-duty:

It's funny how you are a police officer but you shout to the heavens about your support of so many illegal activities that have resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people.
It just goes to show that you don't care what our British and US authorities do,they can 'illegally'commit mass murder until the cows come home and use lie after lie after lie in fact a continuous stream of never ending lies but to you that's ok because we are British and American.Not some Iraqis or Syrians or Libyans.

In reply to off-duty:
Travel!
How lame!
How about your selective reading and selective mindset?I read the lot,i am not cocooned from the British and US media i see it all and use facts,true history and reasoning to deduce the rubbish from the truth,you should try it some time

In reply to The Lemming:

Skimming through the slagging match I think the answer to your original question is "no".

Personally I see partition as a medium term solution but I suspect that longer term there needs to be some sort of international solution to the problems of Sunni/Shia violence. However, I'm no expert on that.

In reply to The Lemming:

Seymour Hersh writing in LRB. Hardly the most provocative voice on U.S. foreign policy and related intelligence matters.



http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

D

In reply to The Lemming: I'm at a loss as to why Isreal gets away with murdering INOCENT people yet no one in the west seems to support invading isreal or even carrying out sanctions against them. It's a fcuked up world.
If you're squeamish then I suggest you don't look at these photos of victims of Israeli aggression....you may say that this isn't relevant to Syria, I would say it is, all be it on a broader range.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/israeli-crimes-against-humanity-gruesome-image...

In reply to Dauphin:
That's very interesting....cheers for that.

In reply to Dauphin:


Hersh has made a career of being wonderfully provocative, but that LRB article was turned down by the New Yorker where Hersh as long published and remains contested http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2013/december/brown-moses-versus-hersh.htm#sthas... particular by the open source based argument from Brown Moses.

In reply to TobyA:


And what about the human rights of the 130 000+ dead and the millions displaced, not to mention the billions of £s of damage to Syria? All those lives destroyed or turned upside down don't concern you at all in your juvenile wonderland, just as the destruction of Libya, of a functioning and in many ways prosperous state, leading to the present situation of meltdown gang rule and the destabilisation of a large part of Africa that resulted don't seem to count in anyway for you.

The spin merchants know what they are doing, they dish out a twisted, simplified world of good and bad, presenting the "democratic ideal", US style as being worth any amount of suffering of other people, "better dead than red" (not for themselves of course!) but you and all the others just don't seem to get it that in the real world we are always looking at imperfect choices and sometimes, often in fact, it causes more trouble stirring up civil wars than it solves... unless you seriously claim that Libyans have a better life now than they did before the NATO attacks?

All of which assumes that you are really naïve enough to believe that the recent interventions of Western powers is motivated by the interest of the people they pretended to want to help... but, yes, judging by what you post, you are that naïve.


PS. I haven't read either Global Research or listened to RT for a while, haven't had time, just the mainstream stuff, at present it's easy enough to see through the sleaze.

In reply to Dauphin:

Yes, good article... now we can expect Toby to say it wasn't "peer reviewed" or something similar

At the time of the attacks there were loads of photos of rebel groups with gas grenades, many reports criticised the way the body counts from videos had been made, of how some rebels had access to gas etc etc but for me the most convincing argument is that it would seem to have been total madness for the Syrian government to make such gas attacks, even if one accepts that they are the heartless criminals as the press says they are, as it would play totally into Obamas hand in giving him a pretext to move in or at least massively increase aid to the rebels. At a time when the government forces were at least holding their own it would have made no sense at all even from a purely ruthless angle.

This article also explains what seemed such a rapid about turn when the Russians made Obama an offer he couldn't refuse, ie. the Syrian proposition, since put into effect, to abandon all their chemical weapons stocks. In hindsight that they agreed to do this so readily, with no last minute backing out or shuffling of feet makes it seem even less likely that they were the ones who did the deed at all.

In reply to The Lemming:
Supporting the 'rebels' was always going to be dodgy, we had and have no idea who they are, what they stand for or if they offer anything different or better than the legitimate regime. If it ends with Islamic extremists in power (which is probable) the world will have achieved nothing in Syria except strengthening the terrorists power base and bringing it closer to Europe.

In reply to cragtaff:

True, but quite apart from that supporting rebels, or as here opponents to the regime, encouraging them to press their demands hard in a part of the world where such things invariably lead to harsh treatment is also irresponsible. You are encouraging people to take risks which you yourself aren't taking, comfortable as we are in old established democracies.

If they are mature, well informed people who consider their lives so unpleasant that they don't mind suffering, or dying, in an attempt to change them then that is their responsibility but looking at the initial protests and the film of three years ago it seemed fairly obvious that many were getting carried away with the emotion and convinced that all they had to do was push and before long Uncle Sam would back them up. Add to this the fanaticizing element of Sunni extremists and the risk of disaster becomes more than probable.

Those who send people to their deaths as the generals did of old has always seemed to me to be a nasty attitude and I don't think it is reasonable today. Is the likely change even if the regime collapses worth over a hundred thousand deaths? For Iraq Saddam had already caused over a million deaths and had invaded his neighbours twice so the morbid accountancy was a little different but in the case of Syria, and Libya before, the balance sheet doesn't look to be favourable - when all the bloodshed stops, as it will one day, will it have been "worth it" for the Syrian people?